Re: Quicken for 2009

Posted by Margaret on July 23, 2008, 9:00 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Andrew wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:

>> A question for both of you: why? From year to year, there are very few

>> changes to Quicken, and most of the changes that do come about are

>> very minor--more cosmetic than anything else. I usually upgrade about

>> every other year, and if let that slip to every third year, I wouldn't

>> be missing much at all.

> Well Ken, mostly because it's fun. Seriously.

> I enjoy dealing with finances and use Quicken for a club that I am the

> treasurer of, as well as keeping track of my family's finances with it with

> 5 separate Q accounts for the 5 family members I track expenses for. And

> usually there's at least ONE new thing that I would like in each release.

> For example, in Q2008, my biggie was the allowance of multiple tags -

> although I don't think the reporting implementation was as good as I had

> hoped for. (For example, some transactions I tag with my name 'ANDREW' and

> wife name 'ETHEL' in the same tag. But a report selecting BOTH "Andrew" and

> "Ethel" doesn't show ANY of those! You need to select "ANDREW,ETHEL" in a

> *single* tag to get those reported...but I digress....)

> But I do agree Ken, if one uses a program for the pure utility, than an

> upgrade every other year or so (like I do with Microshaft's Streets) is

> sufficient.

> Each to their own!

Posted by Margaret on July 23, 2008, 9:15 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Andrew wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:

>> A question for both of you: why? From year to year, there are very few

>> changes to Quicken, and most of the changes that do come about are

>> very minor--more cosmetic than anything else. I usually upgrade about

>> every other year, and if let that slip to every third year, I wouldn't

>> be missing much at all.

> Well Ken, mostly because it's fun. Seriously.

> I enjoy dealing with finances and use Quicken for a club that I am the

> treasurer of, as well as keeping track of my family's finances with it with

> 5 separate Q accounts for the 5 family members I track expenses for. And

> usually there's at least ONE new thing that I would like in each release.

Sorry for that blank post....

Anyway, I enjoy dealing with finances, too. Quicken is my favorite
application, I think. That's why I've upgraded every year since I first
bought Quicken 3.0 for DOS. I'm happy with QP2008, though I do miss the
features that were removed from QP2007's category list. I'm hoping we
get them back in 2009.

I've recently become even more aware of how much I miss those features,
because my elderly father (who's still using QP2007) became ill and
spent a month in the hospital. I've taken over managing his finances,
and because he plans to take the job back sometime in the near future, I
can't upgrade his file set to QP2008. So I have one machine running
2007 and another running 2008. When I'm using QP2007, I find that I
prefer 2008, though I still miss those extra category list features of 2007.

And speaking of Q2009, I read something today that the 3-month beta
started at the end of June, which means we ought to see Q2009 around the
end of Sept. It also said something about a complete redesign. Despite
minor annoyances, I've been glad I upgraded each year. The upgrade from
QP2007 to QP2008 is the first time (I can recall) where I've continued
to miss a removed feature or dislike a change.

Regards,

Margaret

Posted by Andrew on July 24, 2008, 8:12 am

Please log in for more thread options

Margaret wrote:

> And speaking of Q2009, ..... It also said something about a complete

> redesign. ...

> Margaret

http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=22859 .Nancy Falkenburg from Intuit
posted a want-ad stating "Quicken 2009 is planning a major redesign of the
product...." in 11/2007. She was looking for a "Senior User Interaction
Designer' (gee, I didn't even know colleges sprouted those types of folks!).
So we'll see!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regards -

- Andrew

Posted by Hank Arnold (MVP) on July 23, 2008, 4:54 am

Please log in for more thread options

Ken Blake wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:06:42 -0400, Margaret

>> Andrew wrote:

>>> The newest release of Quicken is a day that I anxiously look forward to

>>> every year. Can't figure out why ANYONE would wait and not buy and install

>>> the newest version of Q as soon as they can. It's a true mystery.

>> I'm with you, Andrew. AFAIC, Quicken release day should be a holiday.

>> :-) I'm anxiously awaiting QP2009 myself.

> A question for both of you: why? From year to year, there are very few

> changes to Quicken, and most of the changes that do come about are

> very minor--more cosmetic than anything else. I usually upgrade about

> every other year, and if let that slip to every third year, I wouldn't

> be missing much at all.

Very true. From a functionality point of view every other year is no
problem. With some of us, we just like to be on the "bleeding edge" and
try new things.

Also, I try to keep up with newer versions so I can try to help others
with problems or questions...

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

Posted by Ken Blake on July 23, 2008, 6:39 pm

Please log in for more thread options

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:54:13 -0400, "Hank Arnold (MVP)"

> Ken Blake wrote:

> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:06:42 -0400, Margaret

> >

> >> Andrew wrote:

> >

> >>> The newest release of Quicken is a day that I anxiously look forward to

> >>> every year. Can't figure out why ANYONE would wait and not buy and

install

> >>> the newest version of Q as soon as they can. It's a true mystery.

> >> I'm with you, Andrew. AFAIC, Quicken release day should be a holiday.

> >> :-) I'm anxiously awaiting QP2009 myself.

> >

> > A question for both of you: why? From year to year, there are very few

> > changes to Quicken, and most of the changes that do come about are

> > very minor--more cosmetic than anything else. I usually upgrade about

> > every other year, and if let that slip to every third year, I wouldn't

> > be missing much at all.

> >

> Very true. From a functionality point of view every other year is no

> problem. With some of us, we just like to be on the "bleeding edge" and

> try new things.

I feel that way about some things, but not Quicken.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup